There are a whole host of political issues Americans disagree on, not the least of which is abortion. There are some things, however, most Americans can agree their politicians and government should stand for; two of the most important may be personal freedoms and honesty.
With the Supreme Court's decision today to uphold the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, there is no question that women's personal freedoms have been scaled back. Few women undergo the procedure banned by the law (which gives the medical procedure a gratuitously emotionally-loaded name). But when a woman does, it is because she and her doctor have decided it is the best medical decision for her. No one wants the law coming in between those types of decisions. Bush acknowledged this himself in his last State of the Union address:
"In all we do," he said on Jan. 10, "we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors."
This comment, for those still willing to take the president's words to heart, left room for hope. Perhaps, in spite of already having appointed two anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court, the president was now willing to put personal decision making and health care above his own moral high ground. But that remark from the State of the Union couldn't be squared with what he said just a few days later. From Camp David on Jan. 22, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the president addressed anti-abortion protesters on the Washington Mall. He thanked them for helping "to build a culture of life" and reminded them of all the ways he's restricted abortion rights, such as signing into law the ban on partial-birth abortions.
The decision by Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court to uphold this law are a sad reminder that not only have Americans' personal freedoms been constricted, but also that the president has left no room for honest discussion about it.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Friday, April 06, 2007
A War Even Hawks Don't Want?
April 04, 2007
Stephanie Condon files this report....
Aside from Iraq (which is a pretty big aside), Iran is the most pressing foreign policy issue the United States currently faces. So Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, recently said at conference hosted by RAND. "My own view is that military conflict is not desirable, and it is absolutely unavoid--." Unavoidable? The audience at the conference--which was entitled "Coping with Iran: Confrontation, Containment or Engagement?"--collectively drew in an anxious breath before Burns corrected himself and said, "avoidable."
What was intriguing was that the foreign policy wonks at the conference were mostly in agreement: preemptive action against Iran in response to its growing nuclear program is a horrible idea. Even the American Enterprise Institute's Danielle Pletka--a hawkette who insists the world's lone superpower will "win" in Iraq and that regime change is the answer in Iran--stayed one step away from advocating the use of preemptive military force in dealing with Iran. "If you're looking to end [Iran's] nuclear program, than most people agree military action is not going to provide an answer," Pletka said. "It may slow it down, but it would have a whole series of consequences." Remember Pletka's AEI was the HQ for neocons who advocated the invasion of Iraq.
With hard-nosed hawks reluctant to urge military action in Iran, one might assume the Bush administration is not heading toward confrontation with Iran. But that's what's happening, according to David Ochmanek, RAND's senior defense analyst. At this conference, Ochmanek displayed a neatly laid-out chart--in case words alone didn't convey his point--and explained that the United States' current policies are leading to a worst-case scenario: a hostile relationship with a nuclear-armed country (though Iran is not expected to be able to build nuclear weapons for a number of years should it want to). Bush administration policies, he said, has not made the difficult road to diplomacy any smoother. They have exacerbated the tensions--as the US military presence in the region grows. "The lack of distrust is pervasive," said Javad Zarif, Iranian Ambassador to the United Nations (who spoke to the conference via phone because his travels within the United States are limited). "We as Iranians should not expect the United States to start trusting Iran" and visa versa.
Zarif, though he represents a repressive regime, had a point. With so much distrust and so much military hardware in each other's vicinity, the stage is sure set for an event (purposeful or not) to trigger a military confrontation between the United States and Iran. What if Iran had seized US naval personnel at sea (instead of British)? And remember Iran Air Flight 655. On July 3, 1988, the USS Vincennes shot down the civilian aircraft and all 290 passengers and crew members died. The US government claimed the Vincennes had mistakenly identified the Iranian airliner as an attacking military jet. Tehran claimed this had been an intentional attack on a civilian target. But no war happened. The United States never apologized, but eight years later it agreed to pay $6.1 million in compensation for the victims.
Imagine if this sort of event happened today? Ochmanek's message is that a war is likely--unless Washington and Tehran preemptively find a way to cool down relations before anything like this occurs. If they don't, it's possible the hawks may get a war they don't want.
Posted by David Corn at 04:59 PM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)